i can't know the biases of the people on the site, no--but neither can you. on the other hand, i certainly find it plausible that they're right. i certainly can't rule it out. and since i can't rule what they say out, i have reason not to take this video seriously, unless and until i'm given reason to take it seriously.

reason, i should note, that you have not provided. ever.

which means, once again, you have not explained why i should be impressed.

Well then were kinda done, cause I said in an earlier post "I guess you don't have to." You found a reason to be against it and nothing I can say will ever give it a reason to be impressive.

well, you could give me reason to believe that it wasn't edited deceptively.

but you're not going to do that--because, i suspect, you have no such evidence. if you did, you would've thrown a wrench in my gears long ago by presenting it. and because, i suspect, it wouldn't matter to you anyway. you believe what this video has to say, and you agree with the article that linked it and the person who posted it, because you want to, and for no other reason than that.

I can't disprove deceptive editing, that would mean I would have to have an unedited version of all the talks that the comedian had with them. I do not have an unedited version of the same film.

ON THAT SAME NOTION, however. How can you PROVE deceptive editing if you also don't have any of the unedited information. Your using word of mouth for evidence.

So I guess we have to throw out the whole video because neither of us know if it was actually deceptively edited.

This is Pavlov's Video apparently, both truthful and false at the same time till someone can disprove it without it just being word of mouth._________________The Angry Asshat.

Last edited by Rothide on Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:51 am; edited 1 time in total

And the prize exists for many different categories and each category has their own set of conditions that must be met. Literature is much different than... whatever it was that Obama got. I think he just got a general one, it wasn't actually associated with anything -_-. Much like an honorary degree. It looks good, but has no real substance.

That could be it, to be honest I don't exactly remember when I read it.

Regardless The Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got was awarded by a panel of chosen by the Norwegian parliament. It's basically a political entity in all but name.

All the other Nobel Peace Prizes are awarded by academic institutions in Sweden.

They may share a similar name, but they're very different awards.

No, you're thinking of the difference between "Nobel Prizes" and "Nobel Peace Prizes". *ALL* Nobel *peace prizes* are given by the political entity. All *NOBEL* Prizes awarded by the academic institution.

(Though, Lord of the Flies won a nobel prize, not a nobel peace prize).

Regardless, given that, you know, it's a work of literature and fiction, and not a description of *something that actually happened*, it's usefulness as a descriptor of "What would happen if society were removed" is moot. Yes. Folks might resort to savages. Then again, we might not-because (and this is important): While Selifishness/greediness/etc is, indeed, an inborn and somewhat evolutionary trait, there's evidence altruism is too.

This is a fairly recent development, because for a long, long time it was thought that altruism had to be taught: That people had to be *taught* how to be good, and how not to be evil selfish pricks, and I'm pretty sure that was the thinking at the time the book was written (and judged). But it's starting to emerge that this simply isn't true._________________"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger

The only female in the entirety of The Lord of the Flies is the sow that gets spear-raped to death.

There is a HUGE problem alone with the fact that there are absolutely zero female actors in that narrative, when it comes to taking it as descriptive of the entire human condition.

The Lord of the Flies is a privileged white male monologue, and while it is certainly valuable in its depictions of a certain zeitgeist of the time it was written and, subject to that, as an illustration of certain human ideas and values being subjugated to stupidity, and base and childish urges, it's laughable to treat it as a complete microcosm of all human society.

Society and survival are not independent of each other. Societies can become sophisticated above a basic-needs level, and a hermit can certainly get by in isolation, but if we're talking about evolution and natural developments, society is not separate from that.

Oh right, because the moment you toss in a few women everything would have been sunshines and rainbows. You don't want to see what would have happened to a bunch of teenage girls if they were to be tossed into that scenario with a bunch of teenage boys.

I wasn't using the Lord of the Flies novel as a way to demonstrate gender inequality, I was using it to demonstrate how societal views are much different than base impulses and instincts. How when you strip society as we know it from an individual they change to a more primitive version of themselves.

The fact that you're tearing strips into one of the greatest novels ever written tells me wonders about your personality. I personally hated the story but even I have to admit that it is a very well written piece of literature. It touches on many important themes and does a very good job at portraying them. I'm 'sorry' that the book doesn't cater to your feministic views but it doesn't stop it from doing a good job at what it was written to do.

I mean the book is William Golding's most famous novel and the author won a Nobel Peace Prize in literature. But apparently anyone writing worthless trash can reach that level of recognition right?

Anyways I never debated that society and survival were mutually exclusive. I said the concept of equality only arose because we no longer needed to worry about survival as a species. Because we are at the stage we are at society can evolve into something more than it was before.

Place us back into the primitive settings we were ten thousand years ago where we had nothing but ourselves and our wits and the Lord of the Flies is a good depiction of where we'll end up. Will it be exact? No, but the Lord of the Flies didn't come any where close to depicting the worst case scenarios. Things could have been a lot worse if those boys had more to fight over than simply food and shelter.

Did I say the book was worthless trash? I said specifically that it did have value. Good heavens, that's quite the overreaction to someone taking the story as a piece written within a certain context and from a certain point of view. (Think it might say something about you, if this one book is such a sacred cow?)

You, however, have earned my absolute disgust and loathing for being such a derailing dickwad, and for the way you're trying to use that story. Do you have any idea what point you're actually arguing, or are you just getting off on play-pretending at pragmatism?

We -are- talking about gender issues. I didn't say that everything would have been rainbows if there had been women in the story, and I'm rather glad he didn't include actual women, because the only role Golding saw fit for females in that sort of situation was as non-human prey. Yes, the violent sexual theme there is deliberately implied, I know, I get it. But do you honestly not see the problem in holding to a narrative that sees women as naturally being the recipients of male violence and desire, rather than as players on the stage in their own right? The female perspective, actions, reactions, decisions, desires, drives, thoughts, and approaches are entirely omitted, and if the feminine had been included as actual human beings (which I'm not convinced he would have been able to do, all considered,) then YES, the story would have been somewhat different. The story was NOT about all social influences being stripped away, nor was it simply about being reduced to a survival or crisis subsistence level. You're the one who is badly oversimplifying the story and ignoring its contexts, to demonstrate who knows what. I'm not critical of the story "because it's not feminist," I'm critical of the fact that it omits women entirely from the picture, abstracting the feminine half of the human race down to a freaking sow. There is something to be critical of there, and to consider very critically what worldviews and social influences on the author's part made that a valid choice in his mind.

Good God, man, bonobos. BONOBOS. You want to strip away what we think of as society and place things on a strict survival level, there's a cousin species that does it without all the rape and murder and hierarchy. We left that stage a long fucking time ago. Maybe the reason it took until the age of widespread media to really be able to address these kinds of inequality is because it's a social issue that requires social tools to address.

You can't say that when humanity fails like in LotF it's because social influences just completely vanished and the boys reverted to pure and unadulterated base humans. Can you at least imagine how the story might have gone differently if those boys had not come from a rigidly hierarchical society in the first place? Not all human systems work the same way as the one they came from, and of course those boys were influenced by those ways of thinking. You can have catastrophic social-system failures due to accustomed incentives and constraints vanishing, power vacuums inviting sudden competition, and external pressures overriding rote morals and habits that are inadequate to the changed reality. But that's a machine back-firing, not the absence of the machine in the first place.

Inequality is a social construct, if for no other reason than just because it takes some kind of social relationship for such comparisons to even happen within. And yes, there may be concurrent physiological factors that influence the matter of how people treat each other, but how human people treat and relate to each other is not, in fact, an unavoidable inherent biological inequality such as you might find, for example, with angler fish.

We've been deliberately (though perhaps not skillfully) influencing our own social evolution since before written history. We are a species with enough awareness to deliberately wield that power, and are getting better and better tools to do so all the time.

Addressing matters like the Great Toy Divide is part of how we do that. It's part of what kind of social world we create for our kids.

Last edited by Rune on Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:09 am; edited 1 time in total

Google translate can be useful if you're learning a language, but even then it's a pain. It doesn't know the very basic beginner words I learned from actual Welsh people who speak Welsh to other Welsh speakers._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

i can't know the biases of the people on the site, no--but neither can you. on the other hand, i certainly find it plausible that they're right. i certainly can't rule it out. and since i can't rule what they say out, i have reason not to take this video seriously, unless and until i'm given reason to take it seriously.

reason, i should note, that you have not provided. ever.

which means, once again, you have not explained why i should be impressed.

Well then were kinda done, cause I said in an earlier post "I guess you don't have to." You found a reason to be against it and nothing I can say will ever give it a reason to be impressive.

well, you could give me reason to believe that it wasn't edited deceptively.

but you're not going to do that--because, i suspect, you have no such evidence. if you did, you would've thrown a wrench in my gears long ago by presenting it. and because, i suspect, it wouldn't matter to you anyway. you believe what this video has to say, and you agree with the article that linked it and the person who posted it, because you want to, and for no other reason than that.

I can't disprove deceptive editing, that would mean I would have to have an unedited version of all the talks that the comedian had with them. I do not have an unedited version of the same film.

ON THAT SAME NOTION, however. How can you PROVE deceptive editing if you also don't have any of the unedited information. Your using word of mouth for evidence.

So I guess we have to throw out the whole video because neither of us know if it was actually deceptively edited.

This is Pavlov's Video apparently, both truthful and false at the same time till someone can disprove it without it just being word of mouth.

Which makes it unreliable evidence in favor of anything in this discussion. That's the point ShadowCell is trying to make. If you want to present something relevant to the conversation that makes the kinds of points that this video does, try to find a more valid source of information on those ideas, because this one is suspect.

i can't know the biases of the people on the site, no--but neither can you. on the other hand, i certainly find it plausible that they're right. i certainly can't rule it out. and since i can't rule what they say out, i have reason not to take this video seriously, unless and until i'm given reason to take it seriously.

reason, i should note, that you have not provided. ever.

which means, once again, you have not explained why i should be impressed.

Well then were kinda done, cause I said in an earlier post "I guess you don't have to." You found a reason to be against it and nothing I can say will ever give it a reason to be impressive.

well, you could give me reason to believe that it wasn't edited deceptively.

but you're not going to do that--because, i suspect, you have no such evidence. if you did, you would've thrown a wrench in my gears long ago by presenting it. and because, i suspect, it wouldn't matter to you anyway. you believe what this video has to say, and you agree with the article that linked it and the person who posted it, because you want to, and for no other reason than that.

I can't disprove deceptive editing, that would mean I would have to have an unedited version of all the talks that the comedian had with them. I do not have an unedited version of the same film.

ON THAT SAME NOTION, however. How can you PROVE deceptive editing if you also don't have any of the unedited information. Your using word of mouth for evidence.

So I guess we have to throw out the whole video because neither of us know if it was actually deceptively edited.

This is Pavlov's Video apparently, both truthful and false at the same time till someone can disprove it without it just being word of mouth.

Er, do you mean *Schrodinger's* video?_________________"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger

And wrong even as "Schrodinger's" in this case, since a source or piece of evidence is either valid in support of an argument, or it's not. The standard is, "Not valid evidence until proven valid evidence." Burden of proof, and all that.

Is anyone else bored of the feminist rants of comics lately... the web-comic has lost all of its fun and various fun plot lines and has been crushed into one major feminist rant. I'm all for feminism but i just think the point has been made and i want to see more satire, romance, humor, and god puppets.